Rand Paul on War & Peace

GOP is too eager for war; and so is Hillary

Republicans have traditionally staked out a more muscular platform on national security issues than Democrats, but that script could flip if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) predicted in a clip released
Friday by NBC News: "If you wanna see a transformational election, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton," Paul said in the interview, which will air in full on Sunday's "Meet the Press." "You'll see a transformation like you've
never seen."

Of course, that's only likely to be the case if Paul can defeat his more hawkish GOP rivals for the Republican nomination. Recent public polls have reflected a competitive race, with Paul and several others jockeying for the top spot.
The Kentucky Republican has publicly feuded with many in his party about national security issues, saying the GOP has at times appeared "too eager for war," and that the US should be more judicious in the use of military force.

How many Americans should die to defend Iraq?

Q: [to Gov. Rick Perry]: You really whipped Sen. Rand Paul in an op-ed: "Obama's policies have certainly led us to this dangerous point in Iraq and Syria, but Paul's brand of isolationism would compound the threat of terrorism even further." He responded
today. He said, "Unlike Gov. Perry, I am opposed to sending American troops back into Iraq; I support continuing our assistance to the government of Iraq. I support using advanced technology to prevent ISIS from becoming a threat. I also want to stop
sending U.S. and arms to Islamic rebels in Syria who are allied with ISIS, something Gov. Perry doesn't even address. I asked Governor Perry, 'How many Americans should send their sons and daughters to die for a foreign country, a nation the Iraqis won't
defend for themselves?'" He really takes exception to your criticism.

I disagree with Sen. Paul's representation of what America should be doing, and when you read his op-ed, he talks about basically, what I consider to be, isolationist policies.

ISIS are nasty terrorists but no clear-cut American interest

Q: Do you see a clear-cut, American interest in Iraq?

PAUL: I see mostly confusion and chaos, and I think some of the chaos is created from getting involved in the Syrian civil war. You have to realize that some of the Islamic rebels that we have been
supporting are actually allies of the group that is now in Iraq causing all of this trouble.

Q: ISIS, as a terrorist organization, has been billed by many as a clear and present danger. Do you see that?

PAUL: I look at it on a personal basis.
I ask, "Do I want to send one of my sons, or your son, to fight to regain Mosul?" And I think, "Well ya, these are nasty terrorists, we should want to kill them." But I think, "Who should want to stop them more? Maybe the people who live there."
Should not the Shiites, the Maliki government, should they not stand up? Yes, we should prevent them from exporting terror; but, I'm not so sure where the clear-cut, American interest is.

Iraq War gave Iran regional hegemony & caused Mideast chaos

Q: Former Vice-President Dick Cheney said, "Too many times to count, Obama has told us he is 'ending' the war in Iraq--as though wishing makes it so." Do you agree?

PAUL: Was the war won in 2005, when many of these people said it was won? They didn't
really understand the civil war that would break out. And what's going on now, I don't blame on Obama. Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East. I also blame those
who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry.

Q: You're not a "Dick Cheney Republican" when it comes to American power in the Middle East?

Keep all options on the table, but don't declare war on Iran

Q: You were against the 2012 resolution saying that the US should do anything possible to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

PAUL: I've repeatedly voted for sanctions against Iran. And I think all options should be on the table to prevent them
from having nuclear weapons. I'm a stickler on what the wording is, because I don't want to have voted for something that declared war without people thinking through this. They said containment will never, ever be our policy. We woke up one day and
Pakistan had nuclear weapons. If that would have been our policy towards Pakistan, we would be at war with Pakistan. The people who say, "by golly, we will never stand for that", they are voting for war.

Q: Could the US live with a nuclear armed Iran?

PAUL: It's not a good idea to announce that in advance. Should I announce to Iran, "well, we don't want you to, but we'll live with it." No, that's a dumb idea to say that you're going to live with it. However, the opposite is a dumb idea too.

Executive Branch can initiating war is a usurpation of power

It isn't so much what President Obama has done, although he's done a lot, none very little good, but it's not what he's done with his usurpations of power as much as it is the precedent that it sets for lawlessness that may follow. If the Executive
Branch can initiate war, if the Executive Branch can detain citizens without trial, if it can amend legislation, if it can declare to Congress that Congress is in recess, then government, unrestrained by law, becomes nothing short of tyranny.

Montesquieu recognized this. He wrote that when the Executive Branch usurps the legislative authority, when the president says, "I can write the laws, watch me," he's got a pen, he's got a phone, he doesn't care what the law is, a tyranny will ensue and
we must stop this president from shredding the Constitution.

It isn't just the harm that this president is causing, it's the future harm that he allows by destroying the checks and balances that once restrained each of the branches of government.

No involvement in Syria, even if gas attack proven

Q: The intelligence suggests this was a sarin gas attack at the hands of the Assad government. Is that enough for you to now vote to authorize the president to use force?

PAUL: No. And I think it's a mistake to get involved in the Syrian civil war.
I would ask, "Do you think that it's less likely or more likely that chemical weapons will be used again if we bomb Assad?" Is it more likely or less likely that we'll have more refugees in Jordan or that Israel might suffer attack? I think all of the
bad things that you could imagine are all more likely if we get involved in the Syrian civil war.

Q: Secretary Kerry says for you and others not to authorize force is really hurtful to US credibility.

PAUL: The one thing I'm proud of the president
for is that he's coming to Congress in a constitutional manner & asking for our authorization. That's what he ran on: his policy was that no president should unilaterally go to war without congressional authority. And I'm proud that he's sticking by it.

No US interests in either side of Syrian war

Q: The president says that the US must draw a line at the use of chemical weapons. Do you agree with that line in the sand?

PAUL: The line in the sand should be that America gets involved when American interests are threatened. I don't see American
interests involved on either side of this Syrian war. I see Assad, who has protected Christians for a number of decades, and then I see the Islamic rebels on the other side who have been attacking Christians. I see Al Qaeda on the side we would go into
support. And I don't see a clear-cut American interest. I don't see [the rebels, if] victorious, being an American ally.

Q: How would the US look if the president decided to take military action and Congress does not give that authority?

PAUL:
I think it would show that he made a grave mistake when he drew a red line. When you set a red line that was not a good idea to beginning with, and now you're going to adhere to it to show your machismo, then you're really adding bad policy to bad policy

No US weapons to kill Christians in Syria

Rand Paul continued to stress that "Congress declares war, not the president." Start with the Constitution, he said in an interview. "We have a separation of powers. The constitution says when we go to war
Congress declares war, the president executes the war so congress doesn't get involved in the details of the war, but congress does have a very important role in whether we go to war or not."

Paul, a reliably libertarian voice, said in a statement that the situation in Syria lacks a "clear national security connection" to the U.S. but that the nation "should condemn the use of chemical weapons." There needs to be an "open debate in
Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement."

Among his concerns, Paul said, is that there are "too many Christians that live in Syria... and I just don't want to see my kids or weapons of the U.S. used to kill Christians in Syria."

Source: ABC News "Candidates stand on Syria"
, Aug 31, 2013

It is unacceptable not to hate war

I'm not a pacifist, but I do think it unacceptable not to hate war. I'm dismissive of those who champion war as sport and show no reluctance to engage in war. Any leader who shows glee or eagerness for war should not be leading any nation.
I believe truly great leaders are reluctant to go to war and try mightily to avoid war.

Though I detest violence, I could kill someone who injured or threatened my family. Though I hate war,
I could commit a nation to war, but only reluctantly and constitutionally and after great deliberation. I believe that though some would find this a contradiction in terms that there is a such thing as a Christian or just theory of war, that a just war
is a war of self-defense. At the same time I'm conflicted. I don't believe Jesus would have killed anyone or condoned killing, perhaps not even in self-defense. I'm conflicted.

Opposed to Iraq War; no direct threat & no declared war

Unlike Afghanistan, I would not have voted to go to war with Iraq, not only because there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, but because that country did not pose a threat to the United States.

I will not vote to go to war without a formal declaration of war, as our soldiers deserve and the Constitution demands.

Would have voted against a declaration of war against Iraq

In contrast to Palin's rote recitation of justifications for overthrowing Saddam, Paul says he would have voted against a declaration of war against Iraq. During the runup to the U. invasion, he says that there "was some question whether intelligence was
manipulated."

"The strange thing about Hussein & Iraq is that we actually had been their biggest ally for 20 years because we saw them as a bulwark against the Iranian dominance of the region. I don't think there was a reason to go into Iraq," he said.